MEMORANDUM

TO: THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: LISA STREISFELD, DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2018 SUBJECT: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MANAGED LANES GUIDELINES DOCUMENT

Purpose

Managed lanes are comprised of a set of operational strategies to improve traffic flow on highways in response to changing conditions. These strategies reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve reliability. Policy Directive number 1603.0, concerning “Managed Lanes,” was approved in December 2012 by the Colorado Transportation Commission (See Appendix of Attachment B). As part of Section VII., Implementation Plan, “CDOT staff shall develop guidance to support this Policy Directive.” This memorandum provides an update to the Transportation Commission on the preparation of the Colorado Department of Transportation Managed Lanes Guidelines document (Attachment B).

Action

No formal action required.

Background

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines managed lanes “as a set of lanes where operational strategies are proactively implemented and managed in response to changing conditions1.” Managed lanes strategies are grouped in the following categories: 1) Active Traffic Management, 2) Transit Management for Express Bus Lanes, 3) Special Use Lanes 4) Express Lanes, 5) High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, 6) High Occupancy Toll Lanes, 7) Reversible Lanes (also known as Counter-flow Lanes), 8) Shoulder Lanes, and 9) Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Technology. These strategies regulate demand in lanes, separate traffic streams to reduce turbulence, and efficiently utilized available and unused capacity. With limited financial resources to construct new capacity, managed lane strategies can improve travel time reliability, travel mode split, and foster public-private partnerships to invest in infrastructure.

To promote managed lanes strategies, Policy Directive number 1603.0, concerning “Managed Lanes,” was approved in December 2012 by the Transportation Commission (See Appendix in Attachment B). It states: “The use of managed lanes shall be strongly considered during planning and development of capacity improvements on state highway facilities in Colorado. When applicable, the decision to not implement managed lanes shall be formally documented subject to Department guidance.” The purpose of the PD 1603.0 is “to ensure that the use

1 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/managelanes_primer/index.htm Page 1 of 3

2829 West Howard Place 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80204 of managed lanes is strongly considered during the planning and development of capacity improvements on state highway facilities within Colorado.” As required in Section VII Implementation Plan of the PD 1603.0, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) staff shall develop guidance to support the directive.

The Division of Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) lead the effort to develop Guidelines for Managed Lanes. TSMO is tasked to improve safety and reliability on highway corridors in Colorado. In order to prepare the draft Guidelines, TSMO staff formed two committees, a project Leadership Team and a Technical Working Team. Members included representatives from the High Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE), the Division of Transportation Development, the Environmental Programs Branch, the Division of Transit and Rail, TSMO, the Office of Policy and Governmental Relations, the Division of Communications and Advanced Mobility, CDOT Region 1, and CDOT Region 2. Technical assistance was provided by VHB, a consultant with extensive experience in managed lanes strategies. During document scoping and preparation, feedback from all members of the two Teams was solicited and incorporated into the Guidelines. Staff then presented the draft Guidelines to the following groups for review and feedback: HPTE Board of Directors, the NEPA Practitioners Group, the Statewide Planners, the Statewide/TSMO Traffic Engineers, the Statewide Program Engineers 3 and the Regional Transportation Directors. The goal is to have a final version of the Guidelines completed by the end of 2018.

The “Colorado Department of Transportation Managed Lanes Guidelines (Guidelines)” provide a framework for determining when managed lanes should be considered during corridor project planning for capacity improvements. Specifically, the Guidelines:

• define the purpose of managed lanes, • define capacity improvements, • identify strategies to evaluate managed lanes for consideration in capacity projects, • recognize the overall technical requirements for assessment of managed lanes strategies (define goals, evaluation criteria, performance metrics and compliance factors), and • explain a process to document a decision when to not implement managed lanes.

This framework is necessary to provide statewide consistency for decision-making for implementing managed lane strategies in highway capacity projects. Additionally, the framework provides corridor-specific flexibility to have evaluation criteria matching distinct corridor needs. For example, on one corridor mode split for transit, high occupancy vehicles, and single occupancy vehicles may be a goal; whereas for another highway, the ability to improve trip time reliability and offer real time congestion pricing may be another goal. By following the framework outlined in the Guidelines, CDOT will have a robust process to lead future efforts to deploy managed lanes.

It should also be noted that the HPTE is leading a separate effort to prepare an “HPTE Express Lanes Master Plan.” This effort will take about a year and will create a list of corridors eligible to be future express lanes. The Guidelines are meant to be a complementary document to this process.

Next Steps

Staff requests feedback on the Guidelines for Managed Lanes from the Transportation Commission at the Commission Workshop in October. The Guidelines will be reviewed by the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC) on October 26th. Final discussion and recommendation will be requested from the Transportation Commission in the November 15th meeting. Following the recommendation from the Transportation Commission, a training will be developed for staff to learn how to implement the Guidelines. Page 2 of 3

2829 West Howard Place 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80204

Attachments

Attachment A: Powerpoint Presentation: Update on Managed Lanes Guidelines Attachment B: Draft Copy of Managed Lanes Guidelines (version Oct. 10, 2018)

Page 3 of 3

2829 West Howard Place 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80204 Update on the Managed Lanes Guidelines For the Colorado Transportation Commission

October 17, 2018

Lisa Streisfeld Mobility Operations Our Challenge Continued Growth

1991 2015 2040

3.3 million 5.4 million 7.8 million

27.7 billion 50.5 billion 72.3 billion vehicles miles traveled vehicle miles traveled vehicle miles traveled

All dollar figures adjusted for inflation 2 What are Managed Lanes?

Highway facilities or a set of lanes where operational strategies are proactively implemented and managed in response to changing conditions*

• Regulate demand • Separate traffic streams to reduce turbulence • Utilize available and unused capacity

*https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/public ations/managelanes_primer/inde x.htm What are Managed Lanes Strategies?

The strategies to optimize flow of traffic and improve mobility can use price, vehicle eligibility and access control. • Lane Management: Active Traffic Management Lanes • Lane Control Signal • Value Pricing (a.k.a. congestion pricing) • Variable Pricing (a.k.a. time of day pricing) • Dynamic Pricing • Variable Speed Limits • Highway Ramp Metering • Managed Arterials • Queue Warning • Junction Control • Incident and Emergency Management • Dynamic Re-Routing • Traveler Information • Variable Lane Width • Transit Management: Express Bus Lanes • Special Use Lanes (alternative fueled, connected, platooning, or commercial motor vehicles) • Express Lanes • HOV- High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes • HOT-High Occupancy Toll Lanes • Reversible lanes (a.k.a. Counter flow lanes) • Shoulder Lanes “The use of managed lanes shall be strongly considered during planning and development of capacity improvements on state highway facilities in Colorado. When applicable, the decision to not implement Managed Lanes shall be formally documented subject to Department guidance.” Purpose of Managed Lanes Guidance • As part of Section VII, Implementation Plan of the Policy Directive 1603.0 (December 28, 2012): “CDOT staff shall develop guidance to support this Policy Directive.”

• Create a documented process and a tool box to decide whether or not to evaluate managed lanes as an option Stakeholders

Leadership Team Working Group • Amy Ford, Div. Adv. Mobility • Michael Timlin, DTR • Ryan Rice, TSMO • Alazar Tesfaye, R1 • Debra Perkins-Smith, DTD • David Singer, EPB • Herman Stockinger, OPGR • John Hall, R1/R2 • David Spector, HPTE • Michael King, DTD • Charles Meyer, TSMO • Patrick Chavez, TSMO • Lisa Streisfeld, TSMO • Marie Nakagawa, OPGR • David Krutsinger, DTR • David Swenka,TSMO • San Lee, TSMO • Mark Andrew, R2 • Dave Mulholland (VHB) • Nick Farber, HPTE • Piper Frode, HPTE • Aaron Greco, OPGR • Leela Rajasekar, R1 • Angie Drumm, R1 • Sharon Terranova, DTR High Performance Transportation Enterprise

Developing and Express Lanes Master Plan to Identify Candidate Corridors Project Manager is Nick Farber, [email protected], 303-757-9448

Their long term function:

Enhance Lane Efficiency and Utilization • Expand use of capacity in under utilized lanes • Efficiently allocate capacity in over utilized lanes Provide Travel Time Reliability • Maintain Reliable speeds • Sustain unimpeded travel for transit Yield Revenue to offset Lifecycle Costs • Enhance financial resources for new capacity • Sustainable compensation for long-term O & M costs Best Practices and Case Studies Policy Research • Identify legislative and policy considerations from federal, state, and local jurisdictions for managed lanes • Review peer DOT policy elements to successfully implement and establish managed lanes

Performance Measures and Applications • Provides nationally accepted best practices building upon the direction provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and peer DOTs.

Peer DOT Implementation Practices • Identify approaches and implementation procedures / practices for managed lane projects in California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas • Evaluate prioritization framework based on overarching DOT goals and CDOT’s application

http://floridaexpresslanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/FDOT-Express- Lanes-Handbook.pdf Structure to Develop Managed Lanes Guidance Phase 1 • Guidelines to support the existing or revised PD 1603, Section V • Create a documented process to decide whether or not to evaluate managed lanes as an option • Framework for consistent assessment of managed lane projects within the state • Offer goals, objectives, and performance measures to evaluate and/or justify managed lane alternatives • Provide a toolbox of managed lane strategies to meet study objectives

Phase 2 • Guidelines to develop a concept of operations for managed lanes for the day-to-day operations and maintenance

Phase 3 • Outreach and Training Managed Lanes Policy & Guidance

Table of Contents for the Guidelines • Introduction • Policies for Managed Lanes • Goals and Objectives • Managed Applications and Strategies • Performance Measures for Managed Lanes • Evaluation of Managed Lanes • Roles and Responsibilities Capacity Improvements Capacity improvements include either the addition new facilities, improvements to existing facilities or multi-modal with transit enhancements. The following provides the minimum criteria for when managed lanes should be considered.

1. Changes in the features of roadway elements which increase the maximum throughput for at least 2 miles, including: Constructing a new or additional travel lanes; and/or Widening or restriping lanes or shoulders which would allow the operation of an additional travel lane within the cross section 2. Addition of transit facilities / operations (or other rapid speed travel) Project Manager Decision-Making Tool completes form and attaches to a memo to Regional Transportation Director (RTD), Chief Engineer, and HPTE Director to document the decision.

Express Lanes feasible, evaluate managed lanes

Does the project add capacity and require a CatEx? Goals, Performance Measures and Targets to Evaluate Managed Lanes

Tier I Goals • Mobility • Reliability • Safety

Tier 2 Goals • Environmental Impacts • System Preservation • Organizational Efficiency Example for a Mobility Goal: • Project Financing Maintain an average speed • Technology and Innovation of 45 mph, 90% of the time during peak travel Metrics and Targets • For each goal, a typical performance measure and a target/threshold are suggested • Measures were identified based upon criteria for the data to be: • Understandable • Widely Accepted • Readily Available or Efficient to Obtain Goals, Objectives, Strategies Milestones & Next Steps • Outreach Reviews  Technical Working Group Team and Leadership Team  NEPA Practitioners Group  Statewide Planners  Statewide Traffic Engineers • Statewide Program Engineers III • RTDs • FHWA • MPOs  HPTE Board of Directors • STAC • Transportation Commission (October 17th & November 15th, 2018) • Managed Lanes Handbook / Guidance Document: • Phase 1: October 12, 2018 • Phase 2: Begin January, 2019 • Rollout of Training Program to CDOT Regions second quarter 2019 THANK YOU

Lisa Streisfeld Mobility Operations [email protected] (303) 757- 9876 DRAFT ANAGED LANE M S September 2018 GUIDELINES

SHOULDER OPEN TO Shoulder Lanes TRAFFIC

SHOULDER OPEN TO TRAFFIC 7AM-9AM 4PM-6PM

Express Lanes Reversible Lanes

EXPRESS LANE EXPRESS LANE TOLL $0.75 7AM-9AM 4PM-6PM HOV 3+ USE DO NOT ENTER

DO NOT ENTER

EXPRESS LANE EXPRESS LANE TOLL $0.75 MANAGED LANES High-Occupancy HOV 3+ USE Vehicle (HOV) Lane Management Applications and Strategies Active Tra c Management Lanes

SPEED SPEED MERGE COLLISION AHEAD LIMIT LIMIT RIGHT 2 LANES 45 45 CLOSED

Transit Management High-Occupancy Express Bus Lanes Toll Lane (HOT)

ConnectedSPEED Vehicle SPEED Technology Special-UseMERGE Lanes COLLISION AHEAD LIMIT LIMIT RIGHT 2 LANES 45 45 CLOSED

Executive Summary

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has established statewide guidelines for the evaluation of Managed Lanes. These Guidelines support Policy Directive 1603.0 to ensure that managed lanes are strongly considered during the planning and development of capacity improvements on state highway facilities within Colorado. Several factors contribute to the emergence of managed lane projects as a tactic for consideration in congested urban areas. With limited financial resources to build new infrastructure, right-of-way (ROW) needs associated with corridor expansion, and the recognition that we cannot build our way out of congestion, managed lanes provide a solution for enhancing mobility, mode choice, and public-private partnerships to accommodate Colorado’s population and vehicle traffic growth.

“Managed lanes” are defined as highway facilities or a set of lanes where operational strategies are proactively implemented and managed in response to changing conditions.

CDOT’s Managed Lanes Guidelines are designed to support project managers and other practitioners in determining the viability of managed lanes for new projects with initial scoping after January 2019. The Guidelines are a collaborative effort between CDOT’s Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O), the Division of Transportation Development (DTD), the Division of Transit and Rail (DTR), the Office of Policy and Government Relations, the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE), and CDOT Region 1 and 2 staff representatives. The Guidelines were developed based on previous implementations within the state, national best practices, and oversight of a CDOT Leadership Team. Within the Guidelines, an evaluation tool is provided to determine the appropriate level of analyses, as well as a toolbox of managed lane strategies, and performance measure targets to aid the decision-making process for each corridor under review. Using these Guidelines, managed lane alternatives will be evaluated consistently across the state, and justified when the strategy is shown to provide mobility, reliability, or safety improvements. When it is determined that managed lanes are not applicable for a corridor, these Guidelines also provide the appropriate procedures to document the consideration process.

I | Page

Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction ...... 1 a. Background ...... 1 Section 2: Policy for Managed Lanes ...... 3 a. Colorado Authority ...... 3 b. Colorado Applicability ...... 4 c. “Capacity Improvement” Criteria ...... 4 Section 3: How to Plan for Managed Lanes ...... 5 a. Managed Lanes Evaluation Level Tool ...... 5 b. Planning and Project Development ...... 6 c. Evaluating Managed Lanes within an Operational Project ...... 6 Section 4: Roles and Responsibilities ...... 7 Section 5: Goals and Objectives ...... 12 Section 6: Managed Lane Applications and Strategies ...... 15 Section 7: Performance Measures for Managed Lanes ...... 20 Section 8: Next Steps of a Managed Lane Project ...... 22

List of Tables Table 1: RACI Matrix Template ...... 8 Table 2: Goals and Objectives ...... 13 Table 3: Managed Lane Applications and Strategies ...... 15 Table 4: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ...... 19 Table 5: Performance Measures, Targets, and Data Requirements ...... 21

List of Figures Figure 1: Managed Lanes Evaluation Level Tool ...... 5 Figure 2: Project Life Cycle ...... 9 Figure 3: SMART Characteristics for Project Objectives ...... 14 Figure 4: Major Project Development Process ...... 22

Appendices Appendix A: CDOT Policy Directive on Managed Lanes 1603.0 (December 28, 2012) Appendix B: Managed Lane Evaluation Level Tool Appendix C: Project Examples and Draft Memorandum

Section 1: Introduction The Colorado Transportation Commission approved the Managed Lanes Policy Directive 1603.0 on December 28, 2012. The purpose of the policy directive is “to ensure that the use of managed lanes is strongly considered during the planning and development of capacity improvements on state highway facilities within Colorado.” The “Implementation Plan” in the policy directive requires the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to develop guidance to support the Policy Directive (PD 1603.0). The “Colorado Department of Transportation Managed Lanes Guidelines” (Guidelines) provide a framework for determining when managed lanes should be considered during corridor project planning for capacity improvements. The Guidelines define the purpose of managed lanes, identify strategies to evaluate managed lanes, recognize the overall technical requirements for managed lanes (evaluation criteria, performance metrics and compliance factors), and describe how to document a decision when not implementing managed lanes. These Guidelines are active for new projects with initial scoping after January 2019.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Operations defines managed lanes as “Highway facilities or a set of lanes where operational strategies are proactively implemented and managed in response to changing conditions.”

The resources for this document are composed of CDOT Policy Directive 1603.0, previous implementations within the state, research of national best practices, oversight from a CDOT Leadership Team and professional planning, policy, and engineering expertise from a CDOT Technical Working Group. The Guidelines were prepared by the Division of Transportation Systems Management & Operations (TSM&O) in collaboration with the Division of Transportation Development (DTD), the Division of Transit and Rail (DTR), the Office of Policy and Government Relations, the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE), CDOT Region 1 and CDOT Region 2 staff representatives. a. Background The managed lane concept contains the following common elements: • Creates a “roadway-within-a-roadway” highway where a set of lanes within the roadway highway cross section is managed differently than the general purpose lanes. • Incorporates a high degree of operational flexibility so that, over time, operations can be actively managed to respond to growth and changing needs. For example, posted speed limits could change dependent upon weather conditions and/or traffic volumes. • Operation of and demand on the facility are managed using a combination of tools and techniques to continuously achieve an optimal condition, such as free-flow speeds, number of vehicles per hour, or person-throughput per hour.

Draft – Work in Progress 1

• Principal management strategies can be categorized into four groups and may include one or more of these in management strategies: pricing, vehicle eligibility, access control, and technology. o Pricing - Includes both traditional toll lanes and toll lanes that use congestion pricing (a.k.a. dynamic tolling), where the price varies during certain time periods to manage demand (e.g., peak-period surcharge or off- peak discount). o Vehicle eligibility - The lanes are managed by allowing certain vehicles or restricting others. For example, minimum vehicle occupancy is an example of an existing eligibility restriction. Providing restrictions for commercial motor vehicle use is another method of managing lanes. A potential future eligibility restriction may be for vehicles with specific connected or autonomous capabilities. For example, vehicles with Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) communication and platooning capabilities may become an eligible vehicle type in certain project corridors. o Access control - The traffic flow in these lanes is maintained by limiting access. An example would be express lanes where all vehicles are allowed, but access is limited during long stretches of the facility, thus minimizing turbulence in the flow of vehicles. o ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) and Technology - The lanes are managed by in-vehicle or infrastructure technologies that allow for the optimized flow of traffic in the managed lane. Several factors contribute to the emergence of managed lane projects as a tactic for consideration in congested urban areas. With limited financial resources to build new infrastructure, right-of-way (ROW) needs associated with corridor expansion, and the recognition that we cannot build our way out of congestion, managed lanes provide a solution for enhancing mobility, mode choice, and public-private partnerships to accommodate Colorado’s population and vehicle traffic growth. CDOT continually seeks ways to maximize new investments and find flexible, cost-effective strategies for sustaining or enhancing the movement of people and goods. Managed lane strategies are proven methods to manage traffic flow and provide improved trip reliability. This document provides an overview of the evaluation components for assessing the viability of a potential managed lanes project. As in the case with most transportation infrastructure projects, no two projects are exactly the same and therefore the evaluation criteria should be specifically customized to the project. Implementation of managed lanes will have a project-specific operational impact dependent upon traffic, growth projections and mode split between passenger vehicles, and commercial motor vehicles and transit, in the corridor. These Guidelines recommend that each corridor develop a threshold and operational standards that allow for effective operations of the corridor including the managed lane. Congestion pricing and operational strategies will be adjusted to maintain the minimum threshold for traffic flow, traffic level of service and mode split, pending the corridor objectives.

Draft – Work in Progress 2

Section 2: Policy for Managed Lanes The policies within the state, most applicable to these Guidelines are provided below. In addition, a “capacity improvement” is defined to support of the existing managed lanes policy directive. a. Colorado Authority As stated in the Introduction, the Colorado Transportation Commission adopted the Managed Lanes Policy Directive on December 28, 2012 which requires that the use of managed lanes be strongly considered during planning and development of capacity improvements (See Appendix A). The Colorado Authority and Applicability is provided below: Policy Directive 1603.0 adopted by the Transportation Commission PD 1603, Section V. POLICY, states the following: The use of managed lanes shall be strongly considered during planning and development of capacity improvements on state highway facilities in Colorado. When applicable, the decision to not implement Managed Lanes shall be formally documented subject to Department guidance. High Performance Transportation Enterprise "The Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act (Part 8 of Article 4, Title 43, Colorado Revised Statutes), otherwise known as FASTER, created the HPTE in 2009 as an independent, government-owned business within CDOT. The HPTE has the legal responsibility to aggressively seek out opportunities for innovative and efficient means of financing and delivering important surface transportation infrastructure projects in the state. It has the statutory power, among others, to impose tolls and other user fees, to issue bonds, and to enter into contracts with public and private entities to facilitate Public-Private Partnerships (P3s). The law also introduced a new governance structure, creating an HPTE Board of Directors that includes a mix of State Transportation Commissioners and external stakeholders appointed by the Governor to provide expertise and guidance in analyzing P3 and other creative financing mechanisms. The HPTE is an “enterprise” for purposes of Section 20 of Article X of the State Constitution, so long as it retains the authority to issue revenue bonds and receives less than 10% of its total revenues in grants from the state and local governments."

Draft – Work in Progress 3

b. Colorado Applicability PD 1603.0, Section III. APPLICABILITY, states the following: This Policy Directive applies to all divisions, regions, offices and branches of CDOT and other entities intending to build capacity improvements on the state highway system. It should be noted that the Policy Directive does not apply to non-CDOT roads (e.g., E- 470), or locally and privately-owned roadways. c. “Capacity Improvement” Criteria Capacity improvements are defined as any changes in the features of roadway elements which increase the maximum throughput for at least 2 miles, including: • Constructing a new or additional travel lane, • Widening or restriping lanes or shoulders which would allow the operation of an additional travel lane within the cross section, or • Addition of transit facilities / operations (or other rapid speed travel).

Draft – Work in Progress 4

Section 3: How to Plan for Managed Lanes To help practitioners determine if managed lane strategies are appropriate for corridors with proposed capacity improvements, several steps should be taken. This Section outlines a tool to determine the appropriate evaluation level and a summary of the planning and project development process. The Managed Lanes Evaluation Level Tool can be found in Appendix B. a. Managed Lanes Evaluation Level Tool The following decision-making tool should be utilized to determine the appropriate evaluation level. As shown in Figure 1, the framework for the tool first screens corridors to determine the applicability of managed lane strategies through a series of profile and performance-related questions. If any of the answers to the Stage 1 questions are “yes”, managed lanes should be strongly considered as an alternative. The appropriate evaluation level is then identified in Stage 2. Figure 1: Managed Lanes Evaluation Level Tool

A project is never precluded from considering managed lanes as an option. However, when managed lanes have been evaluated in a previous study (e.g., PEL study), additional evaluation is not required within the following study (e.g., EA or EIS). When managed lanes are determined not to be applicable with respect to such capacity improvements, the decision (based on the completion of this tool) shall be formally documented within a memorandum to the Regional Transportation Director.

Draft – Work in Progress 5

b. Planning and Project Development If managed lanes are strongly recommended based on a corridor evaluation, the planning process for a managed lane project is summarized below. • Stakeholder collaboration includes potentially affected stakeholders and defines roles and responsibilities (See Section 4) • Project goals and SMART objectives are critical in choosing the most appropriate managed lane strategy to assess corridor characteristics — managed lane success depends on the effectiveness of the operating strategy to address the facility characteristics (See Section 5) • Identify appropriate managed lane strategy based on project objectives and ideal operating strategy for the facility (See Section 6) • Evaluate strategies based on performance metrics and establish operating thresholds in conjunction with pricing, vehicle eligibility, technology, access control and actions to be taken if threshold is exceeded to maintain operating objectives (See Section 7) • Project Development (See Section 8) c. Evaluating Managed Lanes within an Operational Project When a project does not fit the definition of a capacity improvement, operational managed lane strategies may be implemented if warranted through a TSM&O Evaluation or if designated as a managed lane in the HPTE Express Lanes Master Plan. The intent of the Express Lanes Master Plan (ELMP) is to serve as a comprehensive long-term strategy for the prioritization, planning, and development of express lane related projects based on considerations including mobility, system connectivity, financial planning, revenue generation, agency and stakeholder coordination, and public input. Ultimately, HPTE will identify and prioritize future corridors and connections that have potential to benefit from express lanes, estimate the potential revenue generating capacity of those corridors, identify which facilities could benefit from emerging transportation technologies, and outline operational policy options for those corridors.

Draft – Work in Progress 6

Section 4: Roles and Responsibilities Multi-disciplinary and agency collaboration is key to the success of a managed lane evaluation and implementation. As with most transportation processes, several parties are primarily responsible for different deliverables in each stage of a project. This section of the document provides an overview of the roles and responsibilities of various disciplines throughout the stages of a managed lanes project. The level of involvement of each discipline and agency fluctuates over time; in one stage a certain discipline / agency may be leading, and in another stage, it may only provide support. The level of involvement for CDOT may also vary, pending the specific managed lane type. For example, an express lane project would result in HPTE operating as the leading authority, whereas an un-tolled managed lane strategy would require CDOT to be responsible for all tasks. A RACI Matrix should be utilized to identify the stakeholder roles throughout the cycle of a managed lane project. The matrix categorizes agency roles in each step of the process in the following four levels.

• Responsible: Under this level of involvement, the discipline / agency will be responsible for moving the project forward under the appropriate phases as they own task completion. The Responsible discipline / agency are the experts and authority for their respective phase(s). They are also responsible for the inclusion of other disciplines during this phase, when appropriate. • Accountable: For this level of involvement, the discipline / agency will play an active role in shaping the project during specific phases. While they are not responsible for the task, they play a key supporting role, as they approve or are ultimately accountable for the task. • Consulted: The discipline / agency under this level of involvement should be periodically consulted during specific phases to ensure the project will not impede or adversely affect their own effort. While the involvement of Consulted disciplines / agencies is not required to see the completion of a given phase, consulting with these disciplines will likely lead to improved results over the project lifecycle, potentially even identifying fatal flaws early in the project lifecycle before it reaches them in a later phase. Consulted implies that the discipline / agency is involved in completing the task, perhaps as a Subject Matter Expert. They do not need to actively contribute to the details of a project, but should still play a role in determining the approach and direction of a project. • Informed: Informed disciplines / agencies should be notified and informed about the subject task. The scope of their role is founded in informational purposes to be made aware of the project or task at-hand.

Table 1 provides an example of typical CDOT roles for managed lane projects without a tolling component.

Draft – Work in Progress 7

Table 1: RACI Matrix Template

(R) Responsible: owns completing the task (one "R" per task, unless split activity) (A) Accountable: approves or is ultimately accountable for the task (C) Consulted: involved in completing the task (i.e. Subject Matter Expert) Planning Project Development and Implementation O&M (I) Informed: notified and informed about the task

System-wide Role Planning Study Concept Development Design Implementation Operations Monitoring Maintaining Planning

CDOT R R R R/A R/A R/A R/A R/A

HPTE Tolling Operations

FHWA

FTA

Regional Agencies (MPO/TPR)

Local Agencies

Transit Providers

Appointed Bodies: STAC, FAC, Trans. Commission

Professional Conglomerates: CASTA, CMCA, 36 Commuting Solutions

Colorado State Patrol

Law Enforcement

Draft – Work in Progress 8

As shown in Figure 2, the three major phases of the project’s life-cycle are as follows:

• Planning Phase: During the planning phase, important elements that will define potential strategies and alternatives are established. These include developing system-wide goals and objectives, prioritizing strategies, and refining purpose and need. • Project Development and Implementation Phase: The project development and implementation phase follows the planning phase. It encompasses concept of operations development (ConOps), environmental review, clearances and permitting, ROW acquisition, utility coordination, design, construction, and testing. • Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Phase: After the completion of a project, it is recommended that performance monitoring be carried out to: 1) assess whether the completed project’s purpose and need have been fulfilled, 2) to assess if triggers or thresholds are met, 3) to provide real time adjustment to the operations of the managed lane to achieve optimal performance, and 4) to feed lessons learned and strategic information into future managed lane projects. It is imperative for the project team to work with the Region Communication Manager to develop a Communications Plan for the corridor. The team should also consult the CDOT Office of Communications during all phases of the project. The communications staff will offer ideas of how to convey the need, the benefits, and the operations of the managed lane to the public. Additional resources for communications are provided in the “CDOT Public Involvement Guidance Document”1 and “A Guide to the Transportation Planning and Programming Public Involvement Process”2. Figure 2: Project Life Cycle

Operations and Maintenance Project Development and Implementation Planning

Stakeholder and Public Involvement

1 CDOT. 2016. Public Involvement Guidance Document. Retrieved via https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/planning-process/public-involvement.html 2 CDOT. 2016. A Guide to the Transportation Planning and Programming Public Involvement Process. Retrieved via https://www.codot.gov/programs/planning/documents/planning- process/PubInvolvementGuide2015.pdf

Draft – Work in Progress 9

CDOT’s typical roles for each task within the life cycle of a managed lane is summarized below. Additional guidance for HTPE roles on projects which contain a tolling component are provided in the HPTE Program website3. System-wide Planning and Planning Study: The Planning phase encompasses both system-wide, and project-level studies. CDOT’s typical role is to define the problem, goals, and objectives and evaluate options to prioritize alternatives. This task is generally led by planning staff with input from local planning departments. Systems-level planning involves the development of system-wide evaluations, long range plans, and congestion management plans. Planners also fulfill key roles at the project-level by supporting planning-level traffic studies, concept development, ConOps, Systems Engineering, Management Plans, ITS Architecture, and the development of the performance metrics for monitoring purposes. Transportation planners are key to the success of managed lanes. They play important roles in the system planning, project development, and operations and maintenance stages. • Concept Development: The project management team (planning, environmental, and engineering staff) support the Concept Development phase. During this phase, traffic operations professionals will work with planners to develop a feasibility assessment or ConOps. Each discipline can provide input as a stakeholder and technical advisor. At the system-level, traffic operations staff can provide valuable access to data, provide technical assistance on system-wide improvements, and assist in the establishment of performance measures to be carried forward in the managed lanes lifecycle. Professionals will also coordinate on the assumptions of the project prior to the design and construction process. o Enforcement: Colorado State Patrol and Local Law Enforcement should be consulted during the concept development of managed lanes in order to address their ideas and concerns for the operation of the managed lanes. In certain cases, additional design elements may be considered to foster the ability of law enforcement to address unlawful driving behavior. • Design: Design professionals play a key role in the project development process. As such, they are an important part of any managed lanes project. However, the involvement of design professionals should go beyond the design stage; their expertise is hugely beneficial at the system-wide and concept planning stages. Design professionals can provide valuable input at the planning stages, and then proceed to lead the design of the selected alternative(s). Similarly, design professionals can continue to contribute to a managed lanes project beyond the completion of final design plans. Providing support to the construction and maintenance professionals can make their jobs easier—and can result in valuable feedback on the actual performance of the design and ROW impacts of the selected alternative.

3 Available at https://www.codot.gov/programs/high-performance-transportation-enterprise-hpte

Draft – Work in Progress 10

• Implementation: Professionals supporting the Implementation phase carry out the design and plans for project implementation. These professionals aid planners and designers in gauging the constructability and cost of alternatives. They should be involved in a minor role as a stakeholder during early planning and concept development. It is important on critical projects for construction engineers to review project concepts for constructability concerns. Note that the Implementation role is not limited to the construction of roadway infrastructure but may include the installation of ITS equipment, the development of ITS software applications, or signal re-timing. This role includes testing or inspecting the newly-built project to ensure that it performs as expected. • Operations: Traffic operations and ITS professionals are typically engaged in the Operations phase. Involvement of ITS engineers early in the process will help to identify implementable alternatives that are consistent with the Regional ITS Architecture. During the early system planning stage, ITS engineers can also provide valuable access to data, lend their expertise on technology, and assist in the establishment of performance measures to be carried forward in the managed lanes project. In the project development process, professionals can work with planners to develop feasibility assessments and ConOps reports. Finally, ITS engineers and traffic operations can work with transportation planners on the system verification and validation process that follows the completion of a project. • Monitoring: CDOT engineers can all contribute their expertise to the Monitoring phase. ITS engineers can monitor ITS deployments and assist in data collection. Planning and traffic operations professionals will actively monitor the operations of the system and can provide data / technical support for performance monitoring. Planners may also evaluate the strategy effectiveness to validate performance measures developed at the onset of the project. • Maintaining: The maintenance role is critical in both the system and project-levels of a managed lanes project. As a stakeholder at the system level, maintenance staff can provide valuable information on the state of the physical system. Maintenance staff can contribute during all stages of the project by providing asset management and data expertise. They are primarily responsible for maintenance and upkeep needs after a project is complete. At the project-level, it is critical to engage maintenance staff in the planning phase to understand maintenance and regional architecture from a condition and asset management perspective. The maintenance role then takes the lead in keeping the newly built facilities in optimal conditions. Lessons learned by maintenance staff can also be valuable to future decision-makers as they seek to select the most cost-effective alternatives over a project’s lifecycle.

Draft – Work in Progress 11

Section 5: Goals and Objectives The planning and evaluation of managed lanes within the state must be based on the goals and objectives of a specific project. Goals and objectives may differ on a project- by-project basis, depending on the specific issues the managed lane is intended to address or the user groups the managed lane is intended serve. To facilitate an assessment of managed lanes, a tiered set of goals and objectives is provided in Table 2. Tier 1 goals are based on CDOT’s Strategic Actions for the Statewide Plan and each managed lane project should aim to address at least one goal area. • Mobility – Improve mobility and connectivity with a focus on operations and transportation choice • Reliability – Enhance travel reliability and reduce congestion through the use of managed lanes • Safety – Move Colorado toward zero deaths by reducing traffic-related deaths and serious injuries The Department acknowledges that managed lanes may also be implemented to manage other impacts, transportation purposes or transportation user groups. Therefore, Tier 2 goals were developed to evaluate the additional benefits which may further support the selection of a managed lane strategy: • Environmental Sustainability – Enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the national environment • System Preservation – Preserve and maintain the existing transportation system • Organizational Efficiency – Increase overall efficiency without compromising the public’s expectations for effective travel • Project Financing – Maximize funding opportunities to meet the needs of the transportation system through revenue generation and the use of partnerships with the public and private sector • Technology & Innovation – Investigate technology and innovation opportunities to make CDOT one of the most technologically advanced transportation systems in the nation The justification of a managed lane strategy must achieve the Tier 1 benefits which maximize operational efficiencies of the transportation system. Other benefits recognized through the Tier 2 goals are recommended for the purposes of providing sustainable transportation choices, environmental benefits, revenues to help pay for the improvement, or advancement of innovative technologies. In support of these goals, quantifiable objectives were developed to identify the specific purpose of the goal and identify the desired outcome of a managed lane.

Draft – Work in Progress 12

Table 2: Goals and Objectives

Goal (We Manage for...) Objective Tier 1 Planning Goals (All Projects)

Increase throughput

Increase mode choice

Increase average travel speeds

Mobility Decrease average travel time

Decrease delay

Maintain acceptable operating conditions

Reliability Decrease travel time variation (ML and GP lanes)

Decrease the frequency and severity of crashes

Reduce number of primary and secondary crashes Safety Work zone management

Enhance incident management activities

Tier 2 Planning Goals (Additional Benefits)

Decrease fuel consumption Environmental Sustainability Trigger(s): Anticipated Need or Benefit Increase air quality / decrease pollutants

System Preservation Implement long-term mobility solutions Trigger(s):30-50 year life projects

Organizational Efficiency Increase customer satisfaction ratings Trigger(s):Funding constraints, high public involvement Minimize costs

Project Financing Maximize funding Trigger(s): Unfunded project

Technology & Innovation Leverage managed lanes to deploy new technologies Trigger(s): CV/AV market penetration, surplus of short- term capacity Design managed lanes to be adaptable for future technologies

Notes: A managed lane alternative must accomplish at least one Tier 1 Goal for justification The Tier 2 Goals provide additional benefits for justification. They should be included in a managed lane assessment if triggered.

Draft – Work in Progress 13

Section 7 aligns performance measures with the goals and objectives and identifies typical targets which should be achieved to justify a managed lane alternative. Since every project is different and must meet a defined purpose and need, the typical targets provide a base for developing objectives with “SMART” characteristics, as defined in Figure 3. Figure 3: SMART Characteristics for Project Objectives

S M A R T Specific Measurable Agreed Realistic Time-bound Objective Objective Planners, Objective can Objective provides facilitates operators, and reasonably be identifies a specificity to quantitative relevant accomplished timeframe guide evaluation. planning within within which it formulation of Tracking partners come limitations of will be viable progress to consensus. resources. achieved (e.g., approaches to against "by 2020"). achieve the objectives objective enables an without assessment of dictating the effectiveness approach. of actions.

The “SMART” characteristics should be developed on a case-by-case basis, subject to the existing traffic conditions of the studied facility.

Draft – Work in Progress 14

Section 6: Managed Lane Applications and Strategies Once the needs and anticipated traffic impacts are determined, the next step in the evaluation process is to identify the appropriate managed lane strategy. Managed lane strategies should align with the identified needs of the corridor and support the established goals and objectives of a project. Several managed lane strategies have been proven to enhance transportation system performance. A list of potential managed lane applications and strategies are presented in Table 3. These examples include the existing managed lane strategies within the state, as well as those envisioned for the future. Table 3: Managed Lane Applications and Strategies

Lane Management: Active Traffic Management Lanes Active Traffic Management is the ability to dynamically manage traffic flow based on prevailing traffic conditions. Examples from the TRB Joint Subcommittee on Active Traffic Management include: • Lane Control Signal (LCS): Lane-use control signals are fixed-grid changeable message indications that use both signal and pictogram symbols to convey lane-use information. LCSs are used for reversible- lane control and non-reversible highway lane applications (such as shoulder lanes) and for incident management. Gantries are used to direct travelers into specific lanes. • Value Pricing (also known as Congestion Pricing): Employs road pricing strategies, including the idea of charging motorists a toll or fee for travel during the most congested times or offering a discount for traveling in the off-peak. Value priced lanes use pricing as the primary mechanism to regulate demand. • Variable Pricing (also known as Time-of-Day Pricing): The price of the tolled lane or facility varies by time of day due to demand and therefore is higher during peak periods and lower during off-peak periods. It encourages use of the road during less congested periods and allows traffic to flow more freely during peak periods. • Dynamic Pricing: The price of the tolled lane or facility goes up as traffic volumes increase. Increasing pricing is designed to discourage congestion causing volumes of traffic in the tolled lanes. The price can increase at any time of day, but typically happens during the peak hour. • Variable Speed Limits (VSL): Dynamically and automatically reduces speed limits in or before areas of congestion, crashes, or special events to maintain flow and reduce risk of collisions due to speed differentials or short headways. • Highway Ramp Metering: A network ITS architecture allowing for a controlled system to manage highway access and assist in preventing unstable traffic flows. Often coordination with mainline and arterial traffic flow is required. This strategy may also include priced queue jumps.

Draft – Work in Progress 15

Lane Management: Active Traffic Management Lanes (continued) • Queue Warning: Used to warn motorists of downstream queues and direct through-traffic to alternate lanes to effectively utilize available roadway capacity and reduce the likelihood of collisions related to queuing. • Junction Control: Using variable message traffic signs, dynamic pavement markings, and lane-use control to direct traffic to specific lanes (mainline or ramp) based on varying traffic demand, to effectively utilize available roadway capacity and manage traffic flows to reduce congestion. • Incident and Emergency Management: Managing lanes to allow for emergency responders to address an incident, quickly clear the scene, and protect the safety of the responders and traveling public. • Dynamic Re-Routing: Changing destination messaging on traffic signs to account for downstream traffic conditions. • Traveler Information: Providing estimated travel time information, roadway weather conditions, roadway work zones, and other condition reports allowing for better pre-trip and en-route decisions by drivers and operators. • Variable Lane Width: A strategy which may be implemented in the future with the advent of connected and autonomous vehicles saturation into the national fleet. This strategy would adjust lane and or shoulder widths on response to real time operational conditions and vehicle types to maximize throughput.

Transit Management: Express Bus Lanes A term applied to a variety of public transportation systems using buses to provide faster, more efficient, and more reliable transit service than an ordinary bus line. Often this is achieved by making improvements to existing infrastructure, vehicles and scheduling. This may include dedicated lanes and slip ramps at interchanges for the transit vehicles. The goal of these systems is to approach the service quality of rail transit while still enjoying the cost savings and flexibility of bus transit. Special-Use Lanes Special-use lanes provide certain vehicles, usually designated by vehicle type, an exclusive operational lane. These lanes may change use based on temporal, physical, or vehicle type. Examples include:

• Lanes or roadways dedicated to implementing new innovative technology or three-dimensional travel • Lanes or roadways that primarily serve commercial motor vehicles or transit needs, although general- purpose traffic may be permitted to use these lanes • Lanes or roadways dedicated to alternative fueling vehicles

Draft – Work in Progress 16

Express Lanes Lanes separated from general purpose lanes by a striped buffer or a raised-median barrier. Lanes whose demand is managed to maintain reliable, fast operation even during peak periods. Express lanes can be tolled. In Colorado, tolls are collected by transponders/stickers on the vehicle or computer controlled image recognition and license plate tagging systems.

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) A highway or street lane for high-occupancy vehicles usually marked with large diamond shapes on the pavement. HOV is also the term used for carpool vehicles. In February 2013, CDOT Commission and Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) passed a resolution that all CDOT HOV Express Lanes would change from HOV 2 to HOV 3 on Jan. 1, 2017, requiring a minimum occupancy of three passengers.

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT) These lanes take advantage of available and un-used capacity in an HOV lane by permitting vehicles that do not meet the minimum occupancy requirements to pay a toll or fee for access to the lanes. This strategy is similar the HPTE Express Lanes within Colorado.

Reversible Lanes (also known as Counterflow lanes or Contraflow lanes) Reversible lanes allow one or more lanes on a facility to shift direction throughout the day to accommodate traffic patterns, such as morning and evening peaks. By utilizing additional lanes in the direction that demands more capacity, congestion can be reduced and overall capacity can be increased. Lane control, signs, ramp meters, and special pavement markings are used to inform motorists of lane direction and movements. Reversible lanes may operate as tolled or non-tolled.

Draft – Work in Progress 17

Shoulder Lanes Using the shoulder as a travel lane, typically during peak periods to minimize recurrent congestion. Shoulder Lanes can also be used to manage traffic and associated congestion immediately after an incident. It is typically applied with variable speed limits and can be tolled or non-tolled. Examples include: • Peak Period Shoulder Lanes (PPSL): Peak Period Shoulder Lanes can operate either as non-tolled or as a tolled express lane, meaning that during highly congested times, highways are given an extra lane by using the shoulder. • Localized Shoulder Lanes (LSL): Non-tolled LSLs can be used to manage traffic and associated congestion during and immediately after an incident and as an accident bypass. • Bus on Shoulder Lane: Dedicated shoulder lane on which buses operate when mainline speeds are less than a specified operating speed and buses are generally prohibited from exceeding the speed of mainline traffic by more than 15 miles per hour, up to a maximum speed of the specified operating speed. • Connected, Autonomous Vehicle, or Rapid Speed Transportation Shoulder Lane: Dedicated shoulder lane on which connected and/or autonomous vehicles or other Rapid Speed Transportation operate when mainline is highly congested.

Connected Vehicle Technology

Similar to special-use lanes, connected vehicle technology lanes service certain vehicles, designated by their connected or autonomous technologies.

• Lanes or roadways dedicated to only connected vehicles and or platooning vehicles • Lanes or roadways dedicated to only autonomous vehicles

Each of the managed lane applications or strategies described above is designed to accomplish a number of goals and objectives. Table 4 aligns the potential managed lane strategies to their overall goals and objectives. Practitioners considering the use of managed lanes for their project should correlate their goals and objectives to the application of the following managed lane strategies.

Draft – Work in Progress 18

Table 4: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Managed Lane Applications / Strategies Active Traffic High- Connected Goal Express Bus Special-Use Express Reversible Shoulder Objective Management Occupancy Vehicle (We Manage for...) Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Vehicle Technology* Tier 1 Planning Goals (All Projects)

Increase throughput

Increase mode choice

Increase average travel speeds Mobility Decrease average travel time

Decrease delay

Maintain acceptable operating conditions

Decrease travel time variation (ML Reliability and GP lanes)

Decrease the frequency and severity of crashes Reduce number of primary and Safety secondary crashes Work zone management

Enhance incident management activities Tier 2 Planning Goals (Additional Benefits) Decrease fuel consumption Environmental Sustainability Trigger(s): Anticipated Need or Benefit Increase air quality / decrease pollutants

System Preservation Implement long-term mobility Trigger(s):30-50 year life projects solutions Increase customer satisfaction Organizational Efficiency ratings Trigger(s):Funding constraints, high public involvement Minimize costs

Project Financing Maximize funding Trigger(s): Unfunded project

Leverage managed lanes to deploy Technology & Innovation new technologies Trigger(s): CV/AV market penetration, surplus of short-term capacity Design managed lanes to be adaptable for future technologies Notes: - Managed lane type directly accomplishes objective

- Managed lane type generally accomplishes objective

- Managed lane type does not directly address objective * - To be re-evaluated upon CV/AV deployment

Draft – Work in Progress 19

Section 7: Performance Measures for Managed Lanes The FHWA Office of Operations defines performance measurement as “the use of statistical evidence to determine progress toward specific defined organizational objectives.4” As mentioned in Section 5, performance measures were identified to develop a consistent set of evaluation metrics for managed lane assessments throughout the state. As illustrated in Table 5, the performance measures were aligned with the appropriate goals and objectives and were utilized as a basis for target-setting (refer to previous section on “SMART” objectives) to assess managed lane alternatives in the planning phase. The performance measures and targets should also be utilized after the implementation of a managed lane to assess the progress toward meeting the stated objectives, continually evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy, and support real-time traffic operations. The performance measures were identified based on the following criteria: • Understandable: Measures that use consistent definitions and interpretations to address the needs of a wide-ranging audience, while still achieving the necessary precision, accuracy, and detail to facilitate system or program improvement • Widely Accepted: Measures were selected based on best practices of previous managed lane projects within Colorado and around the country • Data Readily Available or Efficient to Obtain: Measures which use data that is captured automatically or using technologies with minimal data entry and processing to produce usable results A review of the identified performance measures was also conducted to ensure that the measures collectively address the four factors or congestion: • Intensity – Severity of congestion • Duration – Amount of time the congested conditions persist • Extent – Number of users impacted by congestion • Variability – Different timeframes of congestion

Within the planning phase, the performance measures and targets are provided to identify when a managed lane strategy is appropriate. When the targets are achievable through a managed lane alternative, the managed lane is justified. When the targets are not obtainable, the study should proceed with evaluating capacity improvements for general purpose lanes.

4 FHWA. 2017. Performance Measurement Fundamentals. Retrieved via https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/fundamentals/

Draft – Work in Progress 20

Table 5: Performance Measures, Targets, and Data Requirements

Phase

Goal Objective Performance Measures Typical Target/Thresholds Data Requirements Planning Operations (We Manage for...) Tier 1 Planning Goals (All Projects) Daily or hourly person volume on managed lane (ML) X X Increase throughput and general purpose lane (GP) ML person volume 2x greater than GP (per lane average) Before and after volume and occupancy counts Per lane efficiency (speed x pphpl) Increase by 10% Before and after speed and pphpl X X X X Transit on -time arrivals > 95% on-time schedule adherence Before and after on-time performance Increase mode choice Carpool / Vanpool > 20 % increase in carpools Before and after vehicle and occupancy counts X X Average cost per seat-mile Average is less than $100 Before and after vehicle and occupancy counts X X

Increase average travel speeds Maintain an average travel speed of 45 mph 90% of the time Before GP travel speed and after GP and ML X X Mobility Average lane (ML and GP) and facility speed during peak time travel speed 1 minute per ML facility mile of travel time savings, with a total Before GP travel time and after GP and ML Decrease average travel time X X Travel time savings of 5-10 min travel time 1 minute per ML facility mile of travel time savings, with a total Before GP travel time and after GP and ML X X Average delay (vehicle, person, and ton-mile) savings of 5-10 min travel time Decrease delay X Duration of congestion Acceptable operating conditions 90% of time during peak period Before and after level of service

Level of service ML LOS "D" or better for 20 years Anticipated and actual volumes and capacities X X Maintain acceptable operating conditions Hours per week that an express lane is in operation Minimum 20 hours Managed lane operational data X X Before GP travel speed and after GP and ML X Travel time reliability ( 95th percentile travel times) > 95% on time travel speed Reliability Decrease travel time variation (ML and GP Surveys of users, non-users, focus groups and lanes) Stakeholder perceptions on reliability > 75% stakeholder approval general public Operational level of service Maintain minimum LOS "D" or better Volume counts X Decrease the frequency and severity of X Rate of fatalities and serious injuries Decrease rate by 5% Before and after crash data crashes Rate of total crashes Decrease rate by 5% Before and after crash data X Reduce number of primary and secondary Primary crash vs secondary crash Decrease number of occurrence by 5% Before and after crash data X Hours of lane closures due to work zones Decrease hours by 5% Before and after hours of lane closures X Safety Work zone management Incident /crashes in work zones Decrease rate by 5% Before and after incident / crash data X Incident / crash rate Decrease rate by 5% Before and after incident / crash data X Enhance incident management activities Emergency responder transport times Decrease time by 10% Before and after emergency transport times X Incident clearance times Decrease time by 10% Before and after incident clearance times X Tier 2 Planning Goals (Additional Benefits) Before and after vehicle and occupancy counts Decrease fuel consumption X X Environmental Sustainability Fuel consumption (per PMT) Decrease fuel consumption by 10% and length of system Trigger(s): Anticipated Need or Benefit Increase air quality / decrease pollutants Positive impact as compared to no improvement or additional GP Estimations based on vehicle and occupancy X X Air quality index lane counts and travel times

X X Acceptable LOS for 20-year horizon Maintain minimum LOS "D" or better for 20 years Volume counts System Preservation Implement long-term mobility solutions Trigger(s):30-50 year life projects Maintenance costs per year (low, moderate, high, very X X high) Low to moderate Conceptual level probable maintenance costs

Increase stakeholder satisfaction ratings Surveys of users, non-users, focus groups and X X Organizational Efficiency Stakeholder perception > 75% stakeholder approval general public Trigger(s):Funding constraints, high public Total costs, estimated benefits, actual benefits involvement Minimize costs X X Benefit-cost ratio B/C >1 (based on travel time information) Overall net revenue Revenue contributes to project cost and O&M Anticipated and actual revenue X X Project Financing Maximize funding Ability to fund project Revenue contributes to project cost and O&M Anticipated and actual revenue X X Trigger(s): Unfunded project 3P Partnership abilities P3 project Project funding agreement X Managed lane utilization Operate at LOS "D" or better Anticipated and actual volumes and capacities X X Leverage managed lanes to deploy new Technologies deployed Deploy at least one innovative technology Project design X X technologies Surveys of users, non-users, focus groups and Technology & Innovation X X Trigger(s): CV/AV market penetration, Stakeholder satisfaction > 75% stakeholder approval general public surplus of short-term capacity Technologies deployed Infrastructure is adaptable Project design X X Design managed lanes to be adaptable for Surveys of users, non-users, focus groups and future technologies X X Stakeholder satisfaction > 75% stakeholder approval general public

Draft – Work in Progress 21

Section 8: Next Steps of a Managed Lane Project In conjunction with the CDOT project planning and development process, including all system-level or corridor-level studies that evaluate alternatives for highway capacity through expansion or operational improvements, managed lanes must be considered in the context of any capacity improvement. Upon completion of the planning process as described within Sections 2-7 of these Guidelines, additional steps for project development, project procurement, and construction will follow. Figure 4 highlights the process of a “major project” and the major approval points for HPTE/CDOT within the process. A major project meets one or more of the following criteria: • Greater than roughly $200M in construction costs • Involves public-private partnerships or other innovative financing requiring the statutory powers of the HPTE • Involves toll operations, technologies, and equipment • Has non-traditional or innovative contracting methods requiring or benefiting from the centralized management or expertise of the Office of Major Project Development (OMPD), to be determined by the Chief Engineer

Figure 4: Major Project Development Process5

5 Source: https://www.codot.gov/programs/majorprojectdevelopment/assets/framework

Draft – Work in Progress 22

Likewise, managed lane projects that do not contain a tolling component or meet the minimum construction costs of a “major project” require a similar level of evaluation beyond the planning phase. A high-level overview of the key areas of evaluation for a managed lane alternative are as follows:

1. Project Design and Development

• Project design and development includes access design, driver information and signing, enforcement to maintain compliance, intergovernmental agreements, and use of demand forecasting models. • Coordination with the appropriate stakeholders is required to ensure acceptance and success. A coordinated communications plan is necessary to address the entire project through construction. 2. Operations with Continual Monitoring

• Concept of Operations (ConOps) – Developing a ConOps will set the stage for the remainder of the system development process and the document will be used continuously to validate the system when it becomes operational. In addition to identifying stakeholders and project characteristics, the ConOps will include a plan for: o Project flexibility— The ability to alter operations as conditions warrant and to change lane management strategies when operational triggers or thresholds are met. o Monitoring and evaluation— Continual monitoring of performance measures to ensure effective operation of the facility and to determine if adjustments should be made. 3. Life-Cycle Considerations

• Maintenance– The maintaining agency and anticipated maintenace needs of the managed lane must be identified. This will also aid the development of project benefit-cost assessments • Expectations of the managed lane as it relates to performance and mobility contributions over the full life of the project must be identified to determine when thresholds constitute a long-term modification. 4. Technology Infrastructure

• Adding technology infrastructure to facilitate connected and autonomous vehicles or other transportation technologies, such as conduit, fiber optics, and wireless communication devices. This would trigger a Systems Engineering Analysis to identify how the technology fits into the greater ITS architecture. The performance metrics included within these Guidelines should be utilized in that analysis.

Draft – Work in Progress 23

5. Project Funding

• For non-tolled facilites, project funding should be justified by presenting the benefit-cost of a managed lane alternative. This benefit-cost or return on investment should utilize the data from the performance measure assessment and compare it to the construction costs and anticipated operation and maintance costs of the facility.

Draft – Work in Progress 24

Appendix A: CDOT Policy Directive on Managed Lanes 1603.0 (December 28, 2012)

Draft – Work in Progress 25

Appendix B: Managed Lane Evaluation Level Tool

Draft – Work in Progress 26

Managed Lanes Evaluation Level Tool Date: ______Project Name: ______Corridor / Description: ______Region: ______Preparer: ______No Yes

Is the study corridor a capacity project on an interstate, US highway or state highway? Does the study corridor have a high volume in the 20-year horizon (i.e. 4L < 75K AADT, 6L < 115K AADT, 8L < 155K AADT)? Does the corridor have recurring congestion for more than 2 hours during a peak period? Stage 1: Initial Is the capacity improvement on the study corridor greater than 1-mile? Consideration Is the candidate corridor a limited access facility? Does the corridor have more than 50 incidents per year Does the corridor have existing public transit service? Does the corridor serve a large amount of freight? (Heavy Vehicle > 10%)

If the answer is "No" to all of the questions, Managed Lanes should not be further considered. If "Yes" to any question, proceed to Stage 2 No Yes Evaluation Level Stage 2: Is the study corridor in the HPTE Express Lanes Master Plan? Previously evaluated (complete) Strongly Will the study corridor be conducting a PEL or planning Feasibility Study? Evaluate during PEL Study / Planning Study Considered Does the project require a CatEx? Evaluate during CatEx for Evaluation Does the project require a EA or EIS? Evaluate during EA or EIS

If the answer is "Yes" to any of the questions, Managed Lanes should be considered and evaluated.

Note: When managed lanes have been evaluated in a previous study (e.g., PEL study), additional evaluation is not required within the following study (e.g., EA or EIS).

Copy Chief Engineer - Managed lanes are to be considered. Copy HPTE Director - Tolled express lanes are to be considered. Additional Comments:

Note: Upon completion, if managed lanes are determined not to be applicable with respect to such capacity improvements, the decision shall be formally documented within a memorandum to the Regional Transportation Director.

Appendix C: Project Examples and Draft Memorandum

Draft – Work in Progress 27

Managed Lanes Evaluation Level Tool Date: ______1/1/2009 Project Name: ______US 36 Managed Lanes ______I-25/Pecos St in Adams County to Foothills Pkwy/Table Mesa Dr in Boulder County Corridor / Description: ______Region: ______Region 1 and 4 ______Preparer: ______HPTE / CDOT No Yes

● Is the study corridor a capacity project on an interstate, US highway or state highway? ● Does the study corridor have a high volume in the 20-year horizon (i.e. 4L < 75K AADT, 6L < 115K AADT, 8L < 155K AADT)? ● Does the corridor have recurring congestion for more than 2 hours during a peak period? ● Stage 1: Initial Is the capacity improvement on the study corridor greater than 1-mile? Consideration ● Is the candidate corridor a limited access facility? ● Does the corridor have more than 50 incidents per year ● Does the corridor have existing public transit service? ● Does the corridor serve a large amount of freight? (Heavy Vehicle > 10%)

If the answer is "No" to all of the questions, Managed Lanes should not be further considered. If "Yes" to any question, proceed to Stage 2 No Yes Evaluation Level Stage 2: ● Is the study corridor in the HPTE Express Lanes Master Plan? Previously evaluated (complete) Strongly ● Will the study corridor be conducting a PEL or planning Feasibility Study? Evaluate during PEL Study / Planning Study Considered ● Does the project require a CatEx? Evaluate during CatEx for Evaluation ● Does the project require a EA or EIS? Evaluate during EA or EIS

If the answer is "Yes" to any of the questions, Managed Lanes should be considered and evaluated.

Note: When managed lanes have been evaluated in a previous study (e.g., PEL study), additional evaluation is not required within the following study (e.g., EA or EIS).

✔ Copy Chief Engineer - Managed lanes are to be considered. ✔ Copy HPTE Director - Tolled express lanes are to be considered. Additional Comments:

Concession Model public private partnership:

- Construct one ML in each direction between I-25/Pecos St. and Foothills/Table Mesa Dr. - Reconstruct two general purpose lanes in each direction- SOV are tolled and BRT/HOV are not tolled - Construct Divergent Diamond Interchange at McCaslin Blvd

Note: Upon completion, if managed lanes are determined not to be applicable with respect to such capacity improvements, the decision shall be formally documented within a memorandum to the Regional Transportation Director.